Jarle Stabell wrote:
>
>
> True. I love exceptions and find that they greatly improves the robustness
> of applications, but the reason I'm not convinced about whether it is good
> to be forced to specify what will be thrown is that this in many cases seem
> to require psychic powers of the designer
Nah, just a moderately mature design, proven in some real systems. I use
the rule of thumb that three different (!) layers must use an interface
before it's realistic to call it "stable".
> (or that the "real" exceptions
> must be catched and converted into an "acceptable" one, which looses
> information).
Converting to an "acceptable" one can encapsulate: SAXException does
this, as does InvocationTargetException. A stack of "this error caused
that one caused that one ..." is often much more helpful when diagnosing a
problem than an root cause.
Converting often actually _adds_ information ... like why the error
couldn't be recovered. Keep in mind that a normal behavior for
exceptions is catching and recovering!
- Dave
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)